Jump to content

update; Staffordshires going to court - rescue still refusing to return


Powerlegs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Weird, the rescue guys says that the dogs were in Gloucester Pound which seems to be NSW. How did they end up there from Brisbane?

 

Qld state legislation requires pounds to check for microchips, and Qld doesn't have a state only registry so if the NSW pound checked (surely they are required to?) they should have been able to find the owners. I wonder if the dogs were registered with Brisbane Council. 

 

Also i don't know what Vic legislation is around ownership of dogs but rescue groups as "owners" when the dog is in a foster home are not mentioned at all in Qld legislation so he may be legally incorrect when he says he is the owner the dog.

 

ETA how devastating if this happened to you, I wouldn't be surprised if it does a lot and the original owners just don't find out. And a big reason why I am wary of having people look after my dogs either in my home or theirs if I went away - if they escape you have no control over what happens to them if you're not there :(

Edited by Simply Grand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Simply Grand said:

Weird, the rescue guys says that the dogs were in Gloucester Pound which seems to be NSW. How did they end up there from Brisbane?

 

Qld state legislation requires pounds to check for microchips, and Qld doesn't have a state only registry so if the NSW pound checked (surely they are required to?) they should have been able to find the owners. I wonder if the dogs were registered with Brisbane Council. 

 

Also i don't know what Vic legislation is around ownership of dogs but rescue groups as "owners" when the dog is in a foster home are not mentioned at all in Qld legislation so he may be legally incorrect when he says he is the owner the dog.

 

ETA how devastating if this happened to you, I wouldn't be surprised if it does a lot and the original owners just don't find out. And a big reason why I am wary of having people look after my dogs either in my home or theirs if I went away - if they escape you have no control over what happens to them if you're not there :(

You'd be surprised. Not that long ago, there was a dog dropped off at a pound in Victoria who had come from Tasmania. Apparently she was picked up in a dog park by a couple of tourists from the mainland but instead of taking her to a local pound (or any pound at all in the state), they brought her back to Victoria and took her to a pound there. A boarding kennel owner down here paid for her to be returned to Tasmania but as far as I know, her original owner was never found. Possibly because they wouldn't have thought to check pounds/shelters in another state :mad Some people do baffling, idiotic things. Hanlon's Razor probably applies in many of these sorts of cases.

 

I read the rescue group's statement and I was pretty unimpressed..

Quote

Yet this lawyer woman, who could be anyone for all we know, claims they came from a loving home, that they were cherished pets, and that their owner actually tried to find them when they ran away from her. Yep, a beloved family pet ran away from its owner the first chance it got. A dog she claims had to travel because it was too sick to leave at home. And they had to get motorbikes to chase it. This dog that was so sick it had to stay with the owner while she was on holidays, it couldn't be caught by motorbikes.

I think what this person fails to understand is that illness is not just limping or inability to move quickly. I could never go on holidays without leaving the OH at home to care for Bosley because he was an unwell dog and needed regular medicating and monitoring by someone who knew him. But serious neurological issues aside, he could run very well and very fast.

There were plenty of other things in his statement that are probably worth addressing but the guy sounds like another AWDRI* so there's probably not much point.

 

*He whines about her threatening legal action and then himself threatens legal action. [Insert rolley eyes here]

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow, I didn't see that statement. "Runs away first chance it gets" = not a beloved family pet??? Well I guess all of us that are responsible and loving owners can get rid of our fences then because dogs only run away if they aren't loved and cared for *massive eye roll*

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it a very strange story.

They were Qld dogs, meant to be staying on a large property in the NSW Mid Coast area,

bolted into the bush just after arrival,

picked up by the ranger shortly after,

impounded in Gloucester Pound,

both chips were not checked properly

then off they go to a Vic rescue  

Who for whatever reason, got private information from the register and called the owner whose details must have still been on the chip. She would never have known what happened to her dogs if they hadn't done that so why they did it (with no intent of reuniting them) is really really weird.

Normally we just have to assume the pound has done a decent job re scanning/checking and that's that. :confused: How would they know to go digging across state records for the owner and why call her if they believed the dogs should not go back to her anyway. 

Edited by Powerlegs
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Powerlegs said:

I find it a very strange story.

They were Qld dogs, meant to be staying on a large property in the NSW Mid Coast area,

bolted into the bush just after arrival,

picked up by the ranger shortly after,

impounded in Gloucester Pound,

both chips were not checked properly

then off they go to a Vic rescue  

Who for whatever reason, got private information from the register and called the owner whose details must have still been on the chip. She would never have known what happened to her dogs if they hadn't done that so why they did it (with no intent of reuniting them) is really really weird.

Normally we just have to assume the pound has done a decent job re scanning/checking and that's that. :confused: How would they know to go digging across state records for the owner and why call her if they believed the dogs should not go back to her anyway. 

The owner of the rescue group seems like a bit of a.. (trying to think of how to word this so that it won't result in tantrumy threats of legal action and/or FB bullying from followers) well, like he has a lot in common with Carey Edwards.

Maybe she's lying, maybe he's lying, either way, it reflects poorly on rescue in general.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very poorly! I tend to think that there is more to the news story and that perhaps her claims are truer than it looks because news is normally fact checked before it goes out on tele. His quoted reaction is aggressive .... like you said, is a poor reflection on rescue. :( 

The buck needs to stop with the head ranger of the area because if they are too slack to check all registries then there needs to be someone responsible for making it happen. No wonder people don't want lost dogs to get taken to the pound.  :mad It was a black hole for those two dogs, how many undesirable (not purebred blues) looking dogs without rescue get put to sleep because of laziness/bad attitude.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It happens because the five registries do not all talk to each other and jealously guard their databases. Until this ridiculous situation gets sorted out, problems will occur unfortunately.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JRG said:

It happens because the five registries do not all talk to each other and jealously guard their databases. Until this ridiculous situation gets sorted out, problems will occur unfortunately.

Regardless of whether the registries share their databases or not, if the Ranger had've gone to petaddress.com.au it would have told him which registry the animal's details were on and he as an 'official officer' would've SHOULD HAVE contacted the listed owners.

This was not done and that is NOT doing his job properly.

The regulation state......

63 Owner of seized or surrendered animal to be notified
(1)
When  a  seized  animal  is  delivered  to  a  council  pound  or  approved  premises,  the person in charge of the pound or premises is to give notice of the seizure of the animal to  the  person  who  appears  (from  the  best  endeavours  of  the  person  in  charge  to establish who the owner is) to be the owner of the animal. Notice of seizure need not be given if those best endeavours fail to establish the name and address of the owner of the animal.

 

This Ranger's 'best endeavours' are obviously to only check the NSW registry? now I know that the Rangers out there are aware of how many 'other' databases are out there and I personally know many that go above and beyond to find the owners of their impounded dogs. The Victorian rescue person says that in NSW it is not 'obligatory' to check other databases, but I beg to differ as NOT TO CHECK would mean that the Rangers have not fulfilled their 'best endeavours'! How many other dogs travelling with their owners who are from interstate have gone missing while in NSW and just been rehomed because it's too hard to check with a phone call to an out of state registry? very poor attitude.
 

I am curious though as to that pound's statistics. The Ranger had advised that these dogs would have been destroyed if not sent to the Victorian rescue? again if this pound was doing the right thing, 1) priority should be given to finding the owners of the dogs, 2) Then the regulatory holding period for that animal, 3) would be finding the dogs new owners directly from the pound and that leaves 4) where rescue is ultimately the safety net for the dogs ensuring that they are not put to sleep!

23 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

Who for whatever reason, got private information from the register and called the owner whose details must have still been on the chip. She would never have known what happened to her dogs if they hadn't done that so why they did it (with no intent of reuniting them) is really really weird.

From this phone call it should have been obvious to the Victorian rescue that they were holding 'stolen property'. They knew the owners and had made contact. My question would be - how was the private registry database able to change the ownership on dogs that the owners were still looking for and as they had not given permission for them to be given up and they certainly hadnt surrendered them, how were they able to change the ownership details without the old owners being contacted by the private registry????

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a heads up........ I am the lawyer helping Renee. Mick Collins is one of the "special" members of rescue....... one that is damaging what rescue is about.

Her story is kosher.

Most decent rescues would have returned her dogs.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

trouble is any loonie can become a rescue and because you have "rescue" slapped somewhere/anywhere, you are supposed to be automatically a better person than a disgusting breeder/puppy farmer and anyone that loses a dog had to be a bad person or they would not have lost it.

 

brainwashed public, done and dusted.

 

that poor family and kids

Edited by asal
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, asal said:

trouble is any loonie can become a rescue and because you have "rescue" slapped somewhere/anywhere, you are supposed to be automatically a better person than a disgusting breeder/puppy farmer and anyone that loses a dog had to be a bad person or they would not have lost it.

 

brainwashed public, done and dusted.

 

that poor family and kids

Just learnt this lesson in a very hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JRG said:

It happens because the five registries do not all talk to each other and jealously guard their databases. Until this ridiculous situation gets sorted out, problems will occur unfortunately.

nothing seems to have changed for the better in 20 years, you would think the debacle of the train guages might have taught the different states something over the passage of 100 years but seems not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought here......

 

Renee has posted on her page....

I posted a brief post on a Facebook group asking what my rights were. I received many inboxes from people of the public including some links to the pages where the dogs had been advertised by the rescue group. The posts said the dogs weren't available until the 27th of January on a pound aid page that had been posted on the 18th of January.

On the All Over Staffy Rescue page they posted on their page that they arrived on the 26th of January.

 

So .... OK they went missing on the day of their arrival on the property, which was the 12th, and they arrived in Victoria on the 26th January (Australia Day)...... my calculations say that they werent even held for the required 14 days of impound for microchipped dogs in NSW!!! they would have had two days travelling, at least from northern NSW to Victoria!

 

where is this the right thing to do? We have to be able to trust the people in authority to be able to do things properly.... is this what we expect? It could happen to anyone.

 

Remembering that the microchipping system is called the 'doggie phone home'! These dogs had all the requirements: microchips and up to date details and yet, they were sent onto transport early (impounded for only 12 days or less, depending on when they were impounded) and ended up in another state and in 'rescue' in the blink of an eye!

 

Who thinks their dogs are safe now?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Andrea said:

Food for thought here......

 

Renee has posted on her page....

I posted a brief post on a Facebook group asking what my rights were. I received many inboxes from people of the public including some links to the pages where the dogs had been advertised by the rescue group. The posts said the dogs weren't available until the 27th of January on a pound aid page that had been posted on the 18th of January.

On the All Over Staffy Rescue page they posted on their page that they arrived on the 26th of January.

 

So .... OK they went missing on the day of their arrival on the property, which was the 12th, and they arrived in Victoria on the 26th January (Australia Day)...... my calculations say that they werent even held for the required 14 days of impound for microchipped dogs in NSW!!! they would have had two days travelling, at least from northern NSW to Victoria!

 

where is this the right thing to do? We have to be able to trust the people in authority to be able to do things properly.... is this what we expect? It could happen to anyone.

 

Remembering that the microchipping system is called the 'doggie phone home'! These dogs had all the requirements: microchips and up to date details and yet, they were sent onto transport early (impounded for only 12 days or less, depending on when they were impounded) and ended up in another state and in 'rescue' in the blink of an eye!

 

Who thinks their dogs are safe now?

This is making me wonder whether there are some rangers taking pay offs for certain breeds of dog? I mean we are dealing with those 'rare blue staffies' that unsuspecting fools pay a lot of money for! No idea whether these two were desexed but if not that makes them valuable in the wrong hands. I hate to be suspicious of people but in this case there is a distinctly fishy odour. Imagine if rangers were selling dogs for fighting/bait? It makes me sick to think about it. I'm glad the true owner is pursuing this legally because even most normal people can see she owns these dogs and that adequate efforts were not made by certain 'professionals' to ensure she had the opportunity to reclaim them. I hope the book is thrown at the ranger and rescue.

 

I also just wanted to add in relation to Dogslife's comments that most rescues would have returned her dogs that most rescues would've also made complaint to council regarding them not following their own regulations in selling them dogs that legally belonged to someone else as it makes a rescue legally liable. I don't know of any rescue that would have time or money to spare on dealing with a messy situation like that. 

 

Oh and I have no idea how to get rid of the empty box below that has mysteriously appeared!

 

Quote

 

 

Edited by Little Gifts
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most reputable rescues would have returned the dogs once the rightful owner was identified...

 

Seems strange that the rescue could get the owner's details from the microchips, but the council pound staff couldn't manage it...

 

Wonder how much the rescue are asking for these dogs - seeing as they are pretty blue staffies...

 

T.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Renee's facebook page; https://www.facebook.com/groups/390542711327935/

Please share it.

I have spoken with the Council and the dogs were not kept the 14 days as " the registrations were not in NSW so we only kept them for 7 days" .

 

I am following this up as its is a clear breach of the law as intended. The dogs were correctly microchipped and the records were up to date. They were on the Qld register and the national one. Only NSW fails to check the National database.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously... the dogs had chips... and were registered on 2 databases for same... how freaking hard was it for the pound staff to simply check the national register?

 

Surely, if a dog is chipped, but no details at all come up on NSW CAR... wouldn't pound staff be canny enough to realise that the dog may be from interstate (read on holidays), and a simple check on the national register can reunite the owner with the dog? And just how did the pound legally transfer ownership to the rescue... who also happen to be bloody interstate whose chips are registered on yet another database...

 

Beggars belief!

 

T.

Edited by tdierikx
edited for typo... 'cos I'm anal like that
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...